A Chapter
of Theosophical History Clarified

by
Iverson L. Harris

[Reprinted from The Eclectic
Theosophist, Nov. 15, 1976, pp. 2-3.]

Following are the additional notes by
Iverson L. Harris to Some Reminiscences of William Q. Judge by E.A.
Neresheimer, referred to in our last issue under Historical Material. Though
Mr. Neresheimers Reminiscences are not known to many today, yet they
have been in type for some decades, and to readers of them during those years they will
have presented an incomplete and in certain instances not fully accurate picture. To some,
interested not so much in the history of the Theosophical Society as in the teachings and
doctrines themselves, the whole matter will appear of minor or subsidiary importance; but
to those historically minded, and especially to those who feel an inborn duty to defend
those on whom misunderstanding has fallen, there is always urgency to place on record
actual facts so that these speak for themselves and become part of a faithful record
available to all.

These facts are now covered in the commentary
which follows and are here printed as a practical means for their more public noting and
their preservation. - EDS.

Serious students of Theosophical history usually
have strong convictions - strong loyalties and sometimes even stronger prejudices, alas!
This is understandable, but does not justify distortion of facts when these facts prove to
be unpalatable and irreconcilable with attitudes taken and sometimes stubbornly maintained
in the face of the established facts.

The World Centenary Congress of the Theosophical
Society in New York in November 1975 took an historic step forward in its public - and
apparently unanimous - recognition of the T.S. in New York in 1875, along with H. P.
Blavatsky and Col. H. S. Olcott; and not only as such but as the master-architect and
builder of the modern Theosophical Movement and best expounder of the Esoteric Philosophy
in the U.S.A. in the Nineteenth Century. The timely publication of the first volume of
Judges Collected Writings is irrefutable evidence of his outstanding stature.

The time is now ripe to brush away some of the
distortions, misrepresentations and falsehoods frequently promulgated by earnest but
prejudiced or misinformed ex parte writers concerning what happened to the
Theosophical Society in America immediately following the death of Mr. Judge on March 21,
1896.

There has long been a wide cleavage between those
who vigorously and ardently maintained that William Q. Judge appointed
Katherine Tingley as his esoteric Successor and those who, on the other hand,
have chosen to apply to the Buddhist guruparamparÔ of the Judge-Tingley succession
H.P.B.s dictum that the Apostolic Succession in the Roman Catholic
Church was a gross and palpable fraud.

The final coup de grace to the bona
fides of Katherine Tingleys successorship to William Q. Judge was
loudly and publicly proclaimed by the anonymous writers of the United Lodge of
Theosophists publications to have been in E. A. Neresheimers Some Reminiscences
of William Q. Judge privately circulated and publicly quoted in the early 1930s.
On Page 17 of the typescript of this in many ways well-written, informative and generally
authoritative account, Mr. Neresheimer writes:

Mr. Judges diary is in my
possession and can be seen at any time by any responsible Theosophist. I desire to state
that the further messages and quotations from Mr. Judges diary of which
Mr. Hargrove writes in the above pamphlet of April 3rd, 1896, are not in the
book and never were, as any inspection will verify. Those alleged messages and
quotations attributed to Mr. Judge could only have been concocted by Mrs. Tingley,
assisted by Mr. Hargrove and Mr. J. H. Fussell, who alone were closely associated with
Katherine Tingley at Headquarters at that time, and who, with her, drafted all
communications that then went out from Headquarters.

The historical facts completely contradict the
charge that the people named concocted the notes, or memoranda, (sometimes
miscalled the diary) in Mr. Judges own handwriting. These Mr.
Neresheimer naturally did not find in the Judge Diary in his possession; they were written
by Mr. Judge on fragments of paper, of which Mr. Neresheimer was fully cognizant at the
time of Mr. Judges death, as borne out by statements made by him at the time. Later,
on a visit to Point Loma, Mr. Neresheimer admitted in the presence of his wife and other
witnesses that the fragments of messages and quotations published by Mr.
Fussell and Mr. Hargrove were actually in Mr. Judges handwriting.

The details of the Judge diary and the
above-mentioned libelous charge and its refutation are set forth in The Theosophical
Forum, Point Loma, Calif., Vol. IV, No. 5, January, 1933, and No. 7, March, 1933. Dr.
H. N. Stokes O. E. Library Critic of Washington, D. C., issue of September,
1932 reproduces the actual language of seven of these messages and quotations
under the heading "The Judge Occult Diary.
Vindication of Tingley, Fussell, Hargrove."

Dr. Stokes published further facts in this case in
his issue of October, 1932 and March, 1933.

I have seen the originals of these messages
and quotations in Mr. Judges handwriting, and I showed photographic copies of
them to Miss Margaret Thomas (an active U.L.T: member) at Oakley House, Bromley Common,
Kent, England, while I was attached to Dr. de Puruckers staff during the temporary
transference thither of the International Headquarters of The Theosophical Society (Point
Loma) in 1932-1933.

The anonymous author or authors of the U.L.T.
History of the Theosophical Movement have persistently maintained that the statement that
Katherine Tingley was appointed by Mr. Judge as his esoteric Successor
is untenable and even fraudulent. But the Founder of the United Lodge, Robert Crosbie,
fully aware of the documents on which the Esoteric Council at the Headquarters in New York
accepted Katherine Tingley as having been pointed to (if not literally appointed) by W. Q.
Judge to succeed him as Head of the Esoteric Section, for years thereafter was among the
most outspoken in proclaiming the fact and the strength of Katherine Tingleys
successorship. Witness, for example, the long article titled The Sifting Process
published in The Search Light Light Vol. I, April, 1898. overthe
signature of Robert Crosbie. (Reprinted in The Theosophical Forum, Point Lam,
Calif., Vol. III, Page 253, August 15, 1932, and in The O.E. Library Critic, March,
1933, Vol. XXII, No. 4). Why does the U.L.T. suppress the following from an address given
by their Founder, Robert Crosbie, in the Fisher Opera House, San Diego, California, at a
series of meetings in honor of William Q. Judge, on March 29th and April 1st,
1901 - five years after Judges death?:

It should be noted that the Leaders of the
Theosophical Movements did not become so by virtue of an election by vote - nor were they
self-appointed. Mme. Blavatsky was the first leader, by the force of her wisdom and power
of leadership, and all the true students of Theosophy accepted her as such. And when she
appointed William Q. Judge as her successor, his leadership was accepted for the same
reason - and so, too, with Katherine Tingley, who was appointed by William Q. Judge as his
successor. And when she dies she will appoint her successor who will be followed by the
faithful members - - And thus is preserved the line of teachers and the continuity of the
Movement.

A later change of attitude which led Mr. Crosbie
to found the United Lodge of Theosophists, cannot alter the historic facts on which he
based his judgment consistently and continuously for at least five years following Mr.
Judges death.

One phase of this brief historical review closes
with the following item which appeared in The Theosophical Forum (Point Loma),
June, 1937:

E.A. Neresheimer

The passing of our old and much loved Brother, E.
A. Neresheimer, last April 16th, at his home in Santa Monica, California, in
his ninety-first year, recalls his long years of membership in the T.S. and his devotion
to Theosophy dating back to the time of H. P. Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge. As Dr. de
Purucker said in a telegram of sympathy to Mrs. Neresheimer: Neres memory for
magnificent past work for us all in Society will remain ever green and cherished.

But what of the succession of spiritual leaders in
the Point Loma Theosophical Society, so positively proclaimed by Robert Crosbie?

When Katherine Tingley died in 1929, her office as
Leader and Official Head and Esoteric Teacher was assumed by Dr. G. de
Purucker, not though any written appointment but by the divine light of
intellectual and spiritual qualification - recognized and tested by his predecessor
through long years of discipline and confidence. In his case, in superlative degree
can one apply the infallible rule given by Jesus: By their fruits shall ye know
them.

For a more detailed - though -, for one who knows
the facts, notably restrained - account of what happened to the Theosophical Society,
following the death of Dr. de Purucker on September 27. 1942, see Charles J. Ryans
H. P. Blavatsky and the Theosophical Movement, Appendix IV, to the new special edition
issued by Point Loma Publications, Inc. in 1975. This Appendix was reprinted in The
Eclectic Theosophist Newsletter No. 29, July 15, 1975.

Return to Table of Contents of H.N. Stoke's
"William Q. Judge and Katherine Tingley" series of articles